`Level the playing field'

B. K. Syngal, vice-chairman, BPL Mobile Communications, calls for a level playing field if Wireless in Local Loop (WiLL) is to be more cost-effective. Excerpts from the e-mail interview he gave Frontline:

Was the cutting off of interconnect to basic telephone operators a fair commercial practice? Or was it a form of blackmail?

I do not think that there were disconnections.

What would in your assessment be a fair and equitable resolution to the present conflict?

Level the playing field. Partially that has been done by the recent TRAI order. More needs to be done. There are infirmities yet to be addressed.

What is the basis of your argument that basic operators should pay an interconnect fee to cellular networks?

There is a cost to terminate a call in any network. It has been now recognised by TRAI. For over two years, we have been asking TRAI to correct the anomaly. Finally, they have done it, albeit not entirely. It is a start after a lapse of more than two years.

Is it a fact that the cost of providing a cellular connection today is very much lower than that for a fixed-line phone? Why do cellular phone tariffs not reflect this?

GSM is a cost-based service, without any subsidies, which the fixed-line service providers enjoy. We cannot have linear comparisons. In addition, fixed-line phones are allowed a far greater component of the NLD (national long distance) and ILD (international long distance), which we are not permitted.

Since the WiLL technology is known to reduce the cost of providing a connection enormously, why did the cellular industry try to block the introduction of that technology all these years?

It is entirely untrue that WiLL is less costly. It appears less costly because of very minimal entry fees paid by them. The impact of that low entry fee results in average lowering of airtime charge by 50 to 60 paise. They also save on spectrum charge. On top of it is the unfair, one-sided interconnect regime or revenue share. Should the field be levelled, there is no way WiLL could be more cost effective.

Since limited mobility is a collateral benefit of WiLL technology, did not the cellular industry risk being seen as anti-consumer by seeking to deny this benefit?

There is no denying the fact that technology exists for WiLL to be fully mobile. Nonetheless, WiLL must learn to pay the same entry fee and spectrum charge as cell. After all, it was the government that decided to choose GSM for cell. Therefore, they must enforce the same conditions should the service provision be the same. That is what the cell industry says. WiLL is a fixed service provision. It was a dispensation to the fixed service providers for a quick roll-out of service within the 5 miles of their exchange area. That was willy-nilly extended to 50 km. It is a licence for fixed service. Why are they only talking of providing mobility and not fixed and also getting all benefits of fixed. Why are they getting subsidies in the form of lower entry fee, spectrum charge? Let them pay for providing the cellular service and for fixed service. Let them tariff their service as a cost-based service as cellular and fight in the market place. They cannot have the best of both worlds.

Is there a risk that the pricing practices of the cellular industry would be seen as anti-consumer? You have been known to charge rather steep rates and then cut them dramatically at the first hint of competition - for instance, MTNL's entry into cellular services was blocked for many years, but the moment they won the case, the private cellular industry decided to slash its tariffs.

This is not true. In the case of NLD and ILD cell service providers took the lead. Additionally, we have been bringing the tariff down over the years. We have the consumers uppermost in our minds.

In the long-term, do you see the GSM and CDMA standards co-existing in India? Are there any cases of such co-existence elsewhere in the world?

The markets will decide. Eighty-five per cent of the world is GSM. I doubt if in the developed world they co-exist. There is nothing new about CDMA. It is fairly old technology used for secure communications during the Cold War. It was always for military applications. They would want to commercialise it because the Cold War has thawed. On the contrary, GSM is a far newer technology than CDMA.